What's everyone's thoughts on the World Cup plan
16 groups of 3
Top 2 advance
Then KO Rd 32 onwards
So 48 teams involved
I think good for the game
See some of the countries who should be doing better actually qualify
What's everyone's thoughts on the World Cup plan
16 groups of 3
Top 2 advance
Then KO Rd 32 onwards
So 48 teams involved
I think good for the game
See some of the countries who should be doing better actually qualify
Puts pressure on to win games in the group, may cause upsets....
Good for fifa bank account..
Maybe harder for nations to host...
(i. stadium ok can pass similar amounts, but accomodation facilities etc.)
Another point.
48 from 211 member nations this can also be viewed in both ways.
making it more open to newer nations but than again removing what is the actual big acheivement to reach the finals...
(thats what it is the World Cup Finals)
but yeah still more concerened how its going to go in 2022 in December.
Amigos Aarau
I don't like it one bit......should be hard to qualify for WC. Now New Zealand, China, ......Australia just walk in (And also others in Africa, South America, Concacaf ....). Europe the big looser (If Holland couldn't qualify in Euro with 24 teams then more likely at times a big European nation will miss out and Qatar or Trinidad or Venezuela will get in fairly easy)........Also concerned about 3 in a group because in the last game of the group you know what you need to do to march on....... And 16 countries will only play 2 games then tchao....frankly I liked it the way it is.
Dare to Zlatan
Originally Posted by Grimario
He won't make that mistake at Newcastle since our team is full of number 2's.
Also gone is the 2 games at the same time round, which is nerve racking...
Amigos Aarau
Not a fan. Don't mind having more teams in, but having only two games to make the first cut is a bit rough. One off game / bit of bad luck and you could be struggling to make it out. Lots of big names could drop out early, and probably will be lots of boring groups with two strong teams and one minnow where the results are formalities.
Also read a post by someone on reddit outlining a scenario whereby the last group game can have a specific outcome that benefits both teams, which can lead to suspicion at best and a lack of integrity at worst. Situations like this were the reason the final group games began to be played simultaneously.
All in all not against expansion but prefer the old format to this. They're a bit hamstrung though trying to get more teams in without increasing the length of tournament or amount of games.
I love the increase in teams, but I hate the 16 groups of 3.
What I will say though is I'm struggling to contemplate the allocations per federation. Particularly Asia. Asia surely has to have the worst allocation to achievement ratio. What do we get - 4.5 spots? And none of them make it thru the group stage. I think I read the Asian allocation will be 8.5 for 2026. I'm struggling to figure out where 8.5 teams come from. Australia, Iran, Japan & South Korea are the 4 obvious. Then you've got Iraq, Saudi Arabia & UAE as the next 3 you'd consider decent (WC worthy though?). And who's left in Asia - China maybe? I mean obviously by 2026 things will change. Particularly with the $$ getting thrown into the game throughout Asia we'll probably see West Asian teams + China in particular strengthen. But it just seems.. embarrassing? being an Asian supporter and just thinking about all the cannon fodder we'd throw into the Cup.
OK
Well it won't be in Bangladesh, because two world cups in Asia in a row would be absurd! Surely 2026 will be in USA, Africa or Australia (assuming we weazle out of Asia for some reason.. probably to do with hosting the WC).
The beauty of Oman vs NZ is you don't owe either of them your viewing time. Watch it or don't watch it, it doesn't matter. Those sorts of games will be put on at shit hours in shit places with shit attention drawn to them. Whilst raising so, so much interest within their own countries, generating so much income for said countries (as well as FIFA, so what), putting obscure players on the global radar that previously would have had to rely on the right scouts and the right youtube highlight vids with just the right song choice (I mean can ANY youtube highlight video have any other song than Remember the Name by Fort Minor??) and in such improving the quality of global football as a whole.
But sure, football as a whole didn't exist before the Socceroos Golden Generation, or before the majority of us here were old enough to comprehend the World Cup. So most of us against the idea of an expanded World Cup are just assuming 32 teams is the ideal number because it's what we currently have, and have had "all our lives", or had little interest or weren't even born in 94 when it was 24 teams.
What's one of the oldest memories of the World Cup you have instilled in your brain, it was so good? For me it was the 2002 Senegal/France game. If my googling is correct, Senegal were the second lowest ranked team at that tournament (while France were 1st). If all the "the world cup is dead" people of pre-98 got their way, that game never would have happened.
In 9 years get ready to write & read a shit-tonne of "Cinderalla Story" headlines m8.
Last edited by pv4; 13-01-2017 at 08:38 AM.
OK
We won't get out of Asia unless they kick us out... so 2026 is CONCACAF or Africa (FIFA already said Europe and Asia can't bid for it). South America will go for 2030 (100 years anniversary). Uruguay interested but not sure 48 hotels in the country? Member you been there what you think?
Last edited by lquiquer; 13-01-2017 at 10:28 AM.
Dare to Zlatan
Originally Posted by Grimario
He won't make that mistake at Newcastle since our team is full of number 2's.
This already happens at world cups... Can you say you that the quality in Angola vs Iran would be better than Oman Vs New Zealand?
Well they have played each other at a recent world cup.
The world cup went to 32 teams in 98, it isn't like this is a big change from the long standing tradition that is the 32 team world cup.
48 teams means more games, how can any football fan complain about that?
There are heaps of people complaining about the 3 team groups saying there's no room to lose a game then come back and qualify as there is now. To that i say, don't lose a game.
There are also complaints about crashing out early, losing one game and you'll struggle to come back from it to qualify. These complaints by the same people complaining about more teams meaning lesser quality. If these extra teams are lesser quality then upset results shouldn't be a worry!
In the end its just more great football to watch, i bloody love the world cup and more games to me is a gift!
WE DON'T DO WALKING AWAY !
Beating the new 16 teams (while some will doubtless be strong teams) is not the issue. The point is that there is going to be massive disparity between groups, assuming of the three that one team will be a top level team (top 16), and one will be from the bottom 16, the middle team variance will be massive, leaving some groups that may have a top European contender with say a high flier from Asia and a low team from Africa, while another could have the middle team be a very strong South American or European team that is underrated (in terms of FIFA rankings) currently.
That is my main gripe. The lowered "resolution" of screening 16 teams as if they are the same will lead to big variances.
Have also been. Estadio Centenario is the most run-down, dilapidated piece of shit stadium this side of Gosford. Concrete seats, falling apart, a disgusting moat around the ground with who knows what breeding in it. Historical significance or not needs to be knocked down and rebuild completely.
Montevideo itself is quite a nice place with a few OK hotels, but it's a small country with nowhere near enough stadiums of FIFA quality (need to be at least 40,000 capacity plus all seater) and they would struggle to host even a 32 team tournament. Should stick to hosting the Copa America when it comes around.
Montevideo a nice place??
Your 100% spot on about the Estadio Centenario.
It is a falling apart shit tip
The rest of the place quite frankly was poor.
I would go back to Buenos Aires in a heart beat
Same with Rio and Brazil
Santiago i could handle being in but wouldn't be overtly keen to go.
Uruguay you would have to kidnap me to get me to go back.
It is stuck in a ****ing time warp and about 30 years behind the rest of South America
I not see how they could host the WC in this day and age. It is a small country with a population of 3 million.
I not seeing how they going to host the thing with 32 teams let alone 48
Maybe as a part co host they might get away with a role
Other thing is with Centenario it a complete rebuild. With the cost of modern day stadia. I not kñow the taxation revenue in the country would justify the excessive spend
I haven't put too much thought into this... but in this new format, you will only play 2 games. If you win one of those games, you are almost 100% certain to qualify for the next stage. Which means you can lose one and win one and go through.
The only situation where this wouldn't work is where:
- Team A beats Team B
- Team B beats Team C; and
- Team C beats team A
Which would leave all 3 teams on 3 points and then goal difference would separate them. But considering each group would have a top nation, a middle of the road nation, and a lesser nation, then the likelihood of this scenario happening would be fairly slim I would think.
LRO - my man!
Fwiw most people I've talked to are skeptical on the groups of 3, which i think I'm skeptical of too.
But the 48 teams - I'm yet to talk to anyone who was born before the 90s who thinks it's a bad idea.
OK